It's a pretty radical viewpoint. Can't quite make up my mind whether I agree or not though. Pandas are very high profile in terms of conservation - they're the Guide Dogs for the Blind of the wildlife conservation world.
I think it's a brave thing to say. It's at first distasteful and outrageous but when you think about it, what he's suggesting is based on a sound principle - it's a fight that will never be won, but which will have to be ongoing seemingly forever. Better to direct funds towards something more worthwhile, perhaps.
But then, I've always felt uncomfortable with animal charities getting shedloads of people's spare cash when there are children dying of malnutrition elsewhere in the world. So maybe I'm not best placed to comment.
I don't think we "should" let any species die out because of our actions, but I agree to a point - if giant pandas get a large proportion of the money and publicity, when they are only one of a huge number of animal species which are at risk, then is that a good choice when funds are always going to be limited.
Maybe there are other species which we could do more for, on a finite timescale, rather than continuing to spend a lot on a species where there is no end in sight.
I agree with him to a degree, certainly if conservationists are going to continue with crackpot schemes to breed in captivity and release the resulting pandas into the wild. As Chris points out, the only way to save the species is to spend huge amounts of cash buying the land where the pandas live.